supreme court sounds skeptical on baker's case

[Almost there]

I think that would be an interesting world if all rights AND responsibilities did devolve to actual individuals. No hiding liabilities behind corporate "personhood", and so on.

But who would stand for that?

I would! A related note: I've believed for decades that only living, breathing human beings should pay taxes. One reason is that if zero corporate and business taxes of any sort are rolled into your prices, everything would be a LOT cheaper. The government would then be required to tax us directly and we would see how much we are actually being taxed. Which would lower both taxes and government services.

 

[KCfromNC]

In that case, I look forward to the day Christians walk into an atheist bakery and force the atheist to bake a cake for our "Gay Marriage is an Abomination Unto the Lord" conference.

Several issues with this

1. Bakeries don't have religious beliefs. They are inanimate buildings and a convenient legal fiction. They don't go to church, pray before meals, or believe in life after death.
2. What the heck does a "Gay Marriage is an Abomination Unto the Lord" cake look like? Unlike wedding cakes, I've never seen one in a store.
3. Why assume that only non-believers would be offended by the claim "Gay Marriage is an Abomination Unto the Lord"?

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes. And I disagree with the SCOTUS on those decisions. And I have no problem saying they are dead wrong. After all, in a sane world with intelligent and reasonable people on the court, virtually all decisions would be 9-0. But since most of them are 5-4, the court has been a mockery to me for quite some time. I don't take them seriously, even when five agree with me.

Rule of law is no fun when it prevents people from ganging up on minorities.

 

[KCfromNC]

Although discrimination based on race, religion, etc. is deplorable I am equally opposed to living in a society where the state decides my who or how I conduct business. If I dont want to sell my car to a man in a chicken suit its no one elses business. Nor should I be required to give answer why I refuse. Its non of your business.

And if someone wants to cheat you on a deal by breaking a contract, it is none of anyone's business and the government courts should stay out of it. At least if one is consistent about the state not getting the way of how people conduct business.

This is the problem. There are a ton of benefits that society gives business owners. Now some of them have decided they want to keep getting those benefits but at the same time turn around and not follow the rules associated with those benefits. Seems pretty one sided to me.

 

[Almost there]

Rule of law is no fun when it prevents people from ganging up on minorities.

Straw man.
I suppose that is what some might do for some. It's not what this baker is doing. He's running a business in such a way as to follow his religious convictions. The first amendment grants that right.

 

[KCfromNC]

Straw man.
I suppose that is what some might do for some. It's not what this baker is doing. He's running a business in such a way as to follow his religious convictions. The first amendment grants that right.

The courts have disagreed so far.

 

[bhsmte]

Straw man.
I suppose that is what some might do for some. It's not what this baker is doing. He's running a business in such a way as to follow his religious convictions. The first amendment grants that right.

His point was valid. You need to review definition of strawman.

 

[bhsmte]

Straw man.
I suppose that is what some might do for some. It's not what this baker is doing. He's running a business in such a way as to follow his religious convictions. The first amendment grants that right.

I will say again, the 1st amendment rights are not limitless. Courts decide when they have exceeded their limits.

 

[Almost there]

The courts have disagreed so far.

Yes they have. This speaks to one of the reasons I moved from Seattle to a farm in central KY.

I have to confess that I don't understand why someone, when forced to bake the cake, doesn't just do a really sloppy job. I mean, I'm sure you've seen the Wednesday from Addams family meme on this.

 

[Almost there]

His point was valid. You need to review definition of strawman.

It's not the subject I was talking about in my post, nor is it relevant to the case at hand. It was a strawman argument.

 

[Almost there]

I will say again, the 1st amendment rights are not limitless. Courts decide when they have exceeded their limits.

Yes, with a 5/4 decision often. That's just silly. It means that almost half the supreme court agrees with the loser. It puts the loser in very good company.

Assuming you still respect this fiasco of a court.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, with a 5/4 decision often. That's just silly. It means that almost half the supreme court agrees with the loser. It puts the loser in very good company.

Assuming you still respect this fiasco of a court.

5-4 decisions still count, dont they?

The supreme court has had a conservative majority for over 30 years now, so things could get much worse for you.

 

[iluvatar5150]

So while not confirming the marriage real it would be a confirmation of the powers and princapalities behind the crermony. I have a question~ what would each one of us done in that bakers position?

I would've made the cake. If I'm gonna lean on some stereotypes, a couple of gay dudes would've probably had somewhat more money and somewhat better taste than your average hetero couple, so, as a professional, I probably would've enjoyed working on their cake more than an average cake.

I don't know if you or any of the other posters here have ever worked in a business where you personally service clients, but I have. And on some level, you have to shut off some of your personal preferences if you want to succeed and be a professional. I work in audio production and I've worked for/on several non-Christian religious groups or projects. I've worked for many bands with less-than-wholesome song lyrics and lifestyles. I've worked on video games with violent themes. I've worked weddings that may very well not have been biblically-acceptable. I've worked for venues that profit off the sexualization of their female employees.

In many cases, your best witness isn't to take a stand against something, but to show up and do your job in a professional, respectful, dignified, and skillful manner.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I would've made the cake. If I'm gonna lean on some stereotypes, a couple of gay dudes would've probably had somewhat more money and somewhat better taste than your average hetero couple, so, as a professional, I probably would've enjoyed working on their cake more than an average cake.

I don't know if you or any of the other posters here have ever worked in a business where you personally service clients, but I have. And on some level, you have to shut off some of your personal preferences if you want to succeed and be a professional. I work in audio production and I've worked for/on several non-Christian religious groups or projects. I've worked for many bands with less-than-wholesome song lyrics and lifestyles. I've worked on video games with violent themes. I've worked weddings that may very well not have been biblically-acceptable. I've worked for venues that profit off the sexualization of their female employees.

In many cases, your best witness isn't to take a stand against something, but to show up and do your job in a professional, respectful, dignified, and skillful manner.

That has been my experiences as a photographer before my daughter took over and I went back to a corporate wage slave. I never had a check bounce from a homosexual couple, the food at the receptions was better and the booze was top shelf.

 

[Almost there]

5-4 decisions still count, dont they?

Absolutely. But imagine, after most horse races, a team of 9 judges examine the finish line photo and declare, by a 5/4 vote, the winner. Would you not assume that in virtually all cases four of the judges were blind?

The supreme court has had a conservative majority for over 30 years now, so things could get much worse for you.

That is not my take. I'm not looking for conservative vs not conservative. I'm looking for rational judges that value their job which is to uphold the constitution of the US as applied to our everyday lives. Bias should not be a factor. These are, at the end of the day, pretty easy decisions most of the time.

 

[bhsmte]

Absolutely. But imagine, after most horse races, a team of 9 judges examine the finish line photo and declare, by a 5/4 vote, the winner. Would you not assume that in virtually all cases four of the judges were blind?

That is not my take. I'm not looking for conservative vs not conservative. I'm looking for rational judges that value their job which is to uphold the constitution of the US as applied to our everyday lives. Bias should not be a factor. These are, at the end of the day, pretty easy decisions most of the time.

No, i would assume 4 judges disagreed.

The supreme court has become very political over the last couple of decades, because congress has failed to do their job of passing legislation. Therefore, the supreme court has been forced to rule on existing legislation and the constitution, where legislation could have made things clearer.

 

[Almost there]

No, i would assume 4 judges disagreed.

Yep. And why do they disagree? When you answer, think about how close most horse races are.

The supreme court has become very political over the last couple of decades, because congress has failed to do their job of passing legislation. Therefore, the supreme court has been forced to rule on existing legislation and the constitution, where legislation could have made things clearer.

The only thing the court has a right to do is rule on constitutionality. And there is no obligation that I am aware of to obey anything they decide. They don't create law. At best they only say a law is valid, constitutionally. They can't create law.

And they have been highly politicized for about 70+ years. Not 20.

 

[bhsmte]

Yep. And why do they disagree? When you answer, think about how close most horse races are.

The only thing the court has a right to do is rule on constitutionality. And there is no obligation that I am aware of to obey anything they decide. They don't create law. At best they only say a law is valid, constitutionally. They can't create law.

And they have been highly politicized for about 70+ years. Not 20.

For the same reasons any professional will disagree, because they interpret the issues and facts differently.

 

[Almost there]

For the same reasons any professional will disagree, because they interpret the issues and facts differently.

You're ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room. I'm done trying to point it out.

 

[bhsmte]

Yep. And why do they disagree? When you answer, think about how close most horse races are.

The only thing the court has a right to do is rule on constitutionality. And there is no obligation that I am aware of to obey anything they decide. They don't create law. At best they only say a law is valid, constitutionally. They can't create law.

And they have been highly politicized for about 70+ years. Not 20.

Exactly my point.

If no existing legislation exists, to address certain questions, the supreme court must use their interpretation of how the constitution, addresses the question being asked.